In the Claromontane hst of books of the OT and NT the Acts of Paul comes at the end in the company of ' Barnabae epistula, Johannis revelatio, Actus Apostolorum, Pastor, Actus PauH, Revela- tio Petri,' which suggests somewhat the same judg- ment as that of Eusebius.
From the Commentary of Hippolytus on Dn 3'^ it seems clear that he regarded the Acts of Paul as definitely historical and trustworthy. Com- bating those who doubted the truth of the story of Daniel in the hons' den, he says :
et yap TriKTrevofifv on IIauA.ov eij S-qpCa KaraKpiGevTOi aifieSeis CTT* avToi' 6 \euju et? tou? 7r66as ai'aTreo'aji' 7r(pU\€LX^v auTor, ttws ovx' '"'' '"^^ ToO AauiiqK yti-dju.ei'a vriixTeiicrOjU.ej';
This incident is not extant in the Coptic texts, but a full account, stated to be taken from the Ueplodoi UaiXov, is given by Nicephorus CaUistus (cf . Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kanons, ii. 2. p. 880 ff.), and there is therefore no doubt but that Hippolytus re- garded the Acts of Paul as httle less than canonical.
Finally, the passage quoted above from Augus- tine, c. Faust. XXX., makes it clear that in the Chm-ch of Africa, as late as the time of Augustine, the Acts of Paul was accepted as authoritative and orthodox, even if not canonical.
The date of the Ads of Paul. — The testimony of early wi-iters furnishes a safe terminus ad quern. The Acts must be earlier than TertulUan's de Baptismo. The precise date of this tractate is uncertain, but at the latest it is only a few years later than a.d. 200, so that the Acts must at all events belong to the 2nd centtuy. The question is whether it is a great deal or a very little earlier. Schmidt is influenced by the frequent use of the canonical Acts and the Pastoral Epistles to choose a date not much earher than 180 ; on the other hand, Harnack thinks that the complete silence as to the Montanist movement, or anything which could be construed as anti-Montanist po- lemics, points to a date earlier than 170. Between these two positions a choice is difficult : probably we cannot really say more than that between 160
VOL. I. — T,
and 200 is the most hkely period for the compo- sition of the Acts of Paul. (See especially C. Schmidt, Ada Paidi, 176 ff., where the whole question is thoroughly discussed, and reference made to the hterature bearing on the subject.)
The theology of the Ads of Paul. — From the theo- logical point of view the Acts of Paul has excep- tional value as giving a presentment of the ordinary Christianity of Asia at the end of the 2nd cent., undisturbed by polemical or other special aims.
So far as the doctrine of God is concerned, the teaching of the Acts is quite simple— it is that 'there is one God, and his Son, Jesus Christ,' which is sometimes condensed into the statement that there is no other God save Jesus Christ alone. It is thus in no sense Arian or Ebionite, but at the same time distinctly not Nicene. It is also definitely not Gnostic, for the Supreme God is also the Creator, and the instigator if not the agent of redemption. The general view which is implied is that the world_ was created good, and man was given the especial favour of being the son of God. This sonship was broken by the Fall, instigated by the serpent. From that moment history be- came a struggle between God, who was repairing the evil of the Fall, through His chosen people Israel and through the prophets, and the prince of this world, who resisted His efforts, had pro- claimed himself to be God (in this way heathen re- ligion was explained), and had bound all humanity to him by the lusts of the flesh. The result of this process was the existence of ayvwala. and ir\6,vri followed by (pdopd, aKadapala, ridovf), and ddvaros, and the need of an ultimate judgment of God, which would destroy all that was contaminated. But in His mercy God had sent His Holy Spirit into Mary, in order in this way, by becoming flesh, to destroy the dominion of evil over flesh. This Holy Spirit was_ (as in Justin MartjT) identical with the spirit which had spoken through the Jewish prophets, so that the Christian faith rested through- out on the Spirit, which had given the prophets to the Jews and later on had been incarnate in the Christ who had given the gospel. It should be noted that there is no attempt to distinguish be- tween the Logos and the Spirit. 'Father, Son, and Spirit' is a formula which seems to mean Father, Spirit or Logos, and the Son or Incarnate Spirit. It is clear that this is the popular theology out of which the SabeUian and Arian controversies can best be explained. For the reconstruction of late 2nd cent. Christology in popular circles the Acts of Paul is of unique value. There is also a marked survival of primitive eschatological interest : the expectation of the coming of Christ, and the estabUshment of a glorious kingdom in which Christians will share, is almost central. The means whereby Christians ensure this result are asceticism and baptism. The latter is prob- ably the necessary moment, and is habituaUy called the <T<ppayl%; but asceticism is equally necessary, and involves an absolute abstinence from ail sexual relations, even in marriage. There is no trace of any institution of repentance for sin after baptism; for this reason, baptism appears usually to be postponed, and in these re- spects the Acts of Paul agrees more closely with TertulHan than with Hermas. The Eucharist is primarily a meal of the community, and the theol- ogy underlying it is not clearly expressed ; the most remarkable feature is that here, as in all the other Apocryphal Acts, water takes the place of wine. This feature used to be regarded as Gnostic, but in view of more extended knowledge of the Acts as a whole this opinion is untenable.